User talk:Ocdgrammarian

Welcome!

Hello, Ocdgrammarian, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Eduardo Kausel, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kiwi128 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Eduardo Kausel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eduardo Kausel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article because of course he is notable. But some of the language is promotional. Please remove the adjectives, and we do not refer to people as Dr. Please add linksto as many sources as possible. I will check it later today. And also please see WP:COI. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

There has been a RfC on Talk:Frank Gaffney which resulted in consensus that Gaffney should be described as "a proponent of conspiracy theories" in the article, since that is one of the things he's notable for. So no, that wasn't "vandalism", and it was extremely well sourced. Along with the phrase, you removed 8 (!) sources. Please use the talkpage if you wish to question the current version further. Don't edit war, as I just now notice you're doing (describing the sources as "unhinged"). You edited boldly, but when you're reverted you need to respect WP:BRD. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

He's notable for being accused by far-left extremists of being a conspiracy theorist. The "well sourced" sources belong in that category. I see you've decided by consensus to be blatantly POV in this article. I don't have time for an edit war, so revert it back, but you folks are the reason Wikipedia gets a bad name when it comes to political topics.

I believe you misunderstand my position. I have never edited the article or its talkpage, and don't intend to; I haven't formed an opinion about Frank Gaffney, or taken part in any consensus. I'm warning you as an uninvolved administrator that you need to follow our rules. Please discuss, don't edit war, and don't disrupt Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) Actually Bish, you have edited the article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean where I restored removal (by a different user) of the same sources in question here a few days ago — only restored the sources, changed nothing else — and/or where I semiprotected the article in October 2015? Check. If you call that editing, sure, I have. If you think that makes me involved wrt this article, I disagree. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, some might argue you are involved. Not me. Some. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. None of the sources are far-left except perhaps from the perspective of someone on the furthest right for whom almost anyone, say, supporting Obama must be far left. There's a misunderstanding of NPOV here as well, not surprising for such an inexperienced editor. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I might be an inexperienced editor, but I know something about the American political spectrum. The sources for the claim that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist are mostly opinion pieces by leftists attacking Republicans, and hitting Gaffney in the process. Here's one of the sources: "The Iran Deal Opponents Are Going to Fight to the Bitter End," published in The Nation (which self-identifies as left-wing). The op-ed blasts Republicans and pro-Israel Jews as "neocon apparatchiks."Then we have: "The Republicans' Muslim 'problem'" - another opinion hit piece on Republicans. Moving on: "GOP Presidential Candidates Will Appear Alongside Disgraced Conspiracy Theorist John Guandolo." (That source link is broken, by the way. I'm too inexperienced to fix it.) And, finally: "Bachmann, Gaffney, and the GOP's Anti-Muslim Culture of Conspiracy." QED

Look, if you're fine with letting editors source the claim that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist with opinion pieces arguing that half of America's political spectrum is composed of conspiracy theorists - that's your call, but it doesn't seem to me to be very NPOV or "extremely well sourced."

Ultimately, the main problem with this Wikipedia article on Gaffney, however, is that it mostly cribs the Southern Poverty Law Center as its main source - and also relies on sources that themselves source SPLC. The SPLC has been described as a far-left fear-mongering group by such bastions of the "furthest right" as The Nation and Harper's Magazine. The Harper's piece was written by Ken Silverstein, who supports Obama's policies, but also sometimes criticizes them FROM the left. Silverstein, who, according to Wikipedia has written for such far right media outlets as "Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, The Nation, Slate, and Salon," accused SPLC of being "essentially a fraud [that] has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” Silverstein wrote: "In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate [and] stifles free speech." I would add that it also inspires acts of far-left political violence - as referenced on Wikipedia. It's highly unfortunate that the SPLC's hysteric attack on Frank Gaffney is being used as the main source for criticism of him on Wikipedia. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Incorrect. The claim of Gaffney being a conspiracy theorist is substantially sourced to non-opinion reportage on CNN and The Daily Beast, as well as editorial commentary on Reason and American Conservative Magazine (the SPLC is incidental and, in any case, has already been held by the RS noticeboard as a RS). If, like your previous userids, your fundamental claim is that all media are engaged in a conspiracy against Gaffney (that, in fact, American Conservative Magazine and Reason have been infiltrated by the so-called "left" for the purposes of impugning Gaffney on Wikipedia) and that, therefore, no sources are qualified to comment on Gaffney, you may find yourself continuously frustrated at projects like Wikipedia, as I've previously communicated to your other personalities.

In the meantime, many of us would appreciate it if you could let Frank know, next time you see him in the office, that simply shotgunning this same line that hasn't worked the last 20 times, repeatedly, in hope it will work the 21st time, is tedious for all of us. LavaBaron (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron: Incorrect. The CNN article source literally has "opinion" in the hyperlink. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/21/opinions/bergen-muslim-religious-tolerance/) The Daily Beast article is also an opinion piece by a contributing columnist, not a reporter. The Reason article was written by Dave Weigel, who had to resign from the Washington Post in 2010 after his nasty biased comments about conservatives on the JournoList were leaked. My point is that it's not all media that are critical of Gaffney - you just make it seem like it by sourcing only those media that confirm your biases about him - and perhaps conservatives in general. But, we can discuss and argue about all of this. What I can't argue against are the extremely bilious hostility and personal aspersions from you. Do you really think that the 21 people who have disagreed with you and pointed out what they consider to be your bias are all really one guy being paid off by Gaffney? That's what's called, dare I say it, a conspiracy theory. Look, my edit history is wide open for you to see, so let me tell you something about myself. I love Wikipedia. I've surfed it every night in bed before going to sleep for the past few years - mostly very ancient history and geology articles. I have definitely learned a lot. I'm a stickler for grammar so a few years ago, I started making little grammar edits on the articles I read - first without an account, and then through Ocdgrammarian. Recently, I've gotten interested in providing some more substantial contributions. I made a page for a professor friend at MIT - Eduardo Kausel - who, coincidentally, is a prominent scientific debunker of the 9/11 Truther "jet fuel can't bring down a building" conspiracy theory. I made balancing edits to a page for an organization that I follow locally in Boston. Through that organization, I heard Gaffney speak in the Boston area. Yes, I'm a conservative and, yes, I think Gaffney has a lot of important things to say. I also think he's said some controversial things, and that getting this history across in the Gaffney article could have been done in a much less obviously biased way. But, given how highly I'd thought of Wikipedia, I never expected to be accused by a Wikipedia editor of a conspiracy where I'm being paid off by Gaffney to make your life tedious. It's very disappointing - I really did not realize the nastiness that happens behind the scenes here. I'm going back to my history and geology articles and will stay away from the "mean girls club," but, thanks to you, those articles will be just a little less fun to read. Is that really what being involved in the Wikipedia community is all about? Ocdgrammarian (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like you were being "paid off" by Gaffney, as I doubt you are. It was a poorly-worded observation that, every six weeks, when a dormant account (like yours) suddenly becomes active to make Gaffney-article edits, they all seem to (1) engage in the same style of WP:WALLOFTEXT expressions of outrage that you just demonstrated above, and, (2) declaim that the Gaffney article is all sourced to dirty leftists (see: for example here). So far 13 of them (that we've bothered investigating) have turned out to be socks and been blocked accordingly, but I'm not accusing you of being #14, just advising you to self-police your style of contribution so a well-meaning editor doesn't accidentally accuse you.

As for whether the article uses valid RS or if it relies too heavily on vile leftists, the only way this can be changed is through a new RfC that trumps the previous one. I'd suggest you open one and make your case there. Don't hesitate to let me know if you need help opening a RFC as I'm happy to assist. LavaBaron (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi - you're the subject of a SPI investigation here. You know the drill. LavaBaron (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the former Soviet Union, LavaBaron, so I'm pretty familiar with these kinds of threats you made on my talk page: "just advising you to self-police your style of contribution so a well-meaning editor doesn't accidentally accuse you."

It's never "just advice," it's never a "well-meaning" accuser, and he never does it "accidentally." Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Wait - weren't you a Cuban dissident or something last time? LavaBaron (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been introduced to the other personalities inhabiting your conspiracy theory, but I imagine Cuban dissidents would also be familiar with your tactics, товарищ комиссар Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Discretionary sanction alerts

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please note also that Frank Gaffney is under some special page restrictions beyond the discretionary sanctions described above. I quote from the warning at the top of its talkpage: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). … If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned." There's more, please read the whole notice, but I wanted to alert you specifically to the consensus requirement for reinstating edits, in view of these edits. I don't really blame you for not being aware of these restrictions when you first edited the article. But now you know. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I just added quite a bit of information to balance some of the sources used on the page. In making the additions, I did not remove any information that already existed. How do I prevent vandalism through reversions deleting all of this information arbitrarily? Ocdgrammarian (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

I've removed the bulk of your additions; please see here for further information. I, additionally, removed this [1] as the source doesn't mention Gaffney anywhere in it and this is an article on Gaffney. As Doug has previously told you, we are here to be NPOV, not impartial; if an organization has criticized Gaffney we don't, in turn, introduce every instance of someone criticizing the organization (and instances of people criticizing the critics, and so forth ad infinitum). It would be a great addition to the Southern Poverty Law Center article, though, and you should definitely feel free to add it there. LavaBaron (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You outright lied regarding my addition on the HLF document - the addition used multiple secondary sources, and just one primary source that I can replace. Bishonen, this is exactly what I'm talking about. He's vandalizing the article. I'm not exactly clear on the WP:1RR, but I believe he broke the restriction by making multiple reverts in the article within minutes.

OCD - first, please be sure to sign your posts. Second, I didn't 1RR, I removed a BLP violation which is a brightline exemption; the sources you introduced, though hundreds of pages (in aggregate) in length, did not mention the name "Gaffney" even once (it's customary in a BLP that the sources, you know, at least mention the LP) and attempted to connect him by SYNTH to a legal case which is objectively problematic in a BLP. Third, you actually already violated 1RR here [2] (which is date-stamped after your warnings). I really have no desire to make a 1RR case out of that, though; maybe we could just try a slightly toned-down way of interacting with each other? LavaBaron (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will reciprocate any civil interaction from you in kind. An apology for filing a spurious SPI on me would be a good start. I did not do a reversion there, as far as I understand it - I removed a POV word you tried to attribute to the source and moved a quote you removed for no reason stated to a place where it was more in context. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

It appears you've just reverted the removal of SYNTH material connecting Gaffney to a legal case which violates our BLP guidelines. I'm not going to edit war this and I'm not interested in dragging this to 3RR. You should know, however, this behavior is very much discouraged. LavaBaron (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original SPLC quote connected Gaffney to a legal case, see the source. I didn't revert anything. I then added an ADL source, which mentions both Gaffney and his comments on the legal case. That's not SYNTH. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding you. The thread is Proposed TBAN on Ocdgrammarian.The discussion is about the topic User:Ocdgrammarian. Thank you. LavaBaron (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the proposal for page bans, I have a serious question. Ocdgrammarian, have you ever edited Center for Security Policy? I haven't found any evidence of you having done so and I am very confused as to why there is a proposal to PBAN you from that page. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. Look, I stumbled across the Gaffney thing by accident. I heard Gaffney speak before and the article struck me as just incredibly POV and almost hysterical. It's almost all tertiary sources quoting secondary source politicized activist groups. LavaBaron trolled me into arguing with him with his conspiracy theories and general uncivility. Look at my contributions - I freaking edit little grammar nitpics on articles about random stuff like Dromedaries, Breccia, and the West Siberian Plain. Now I'm in an edit war with a bunch of ideologues who pose as editors. I should have looked up LavaBaron before engaging him:

Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

That's entirely fine, I was simply confused by the addition of a second page to the PBAN request. I didn't realize it was related to Frank Gaffney (founder of the Center for Security policy). I can give little advice here but to just forget the pages, they're not worth losing your patience over. I imagine you feel like you kicked a hornets nest without even realizing it was there. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, I appreciate it and that's good advice. I'd characterize it more like stepping into a snake pit. I didn't realize Wikipedia could be so biased and nasty. It is annoying that a few ideologues can distort supposedly objective reality through harassment and mob rule. I am from the former Soviet Union, after all. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

July 2016

I've removed your repeated links to offsite attacks on other editors from ANI, please don't put them back. In fact stop talking about LavaBaron and RunnyAmiga altogether, directly or indirectly, or I will issue a formal topic ban from Frank Gaffney and related pages. You keep saying you're done with the subject, and then coming back with snide personal remarks and name-calling ("ideologues who pose as editors", etc). Comment on content, not contributors. I'm not removing the links from your own page (above), but I'd advise you to do it yourself. Posting them on Wikipedia shows you in a poor light. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen: Fair enough. How do I defend myself against personal attacks from them, specifically against accusations of sockpuppetry, being a "loose one," snide personal remarks ("many of us would appreciate it if you could let Frank know, next time you see him in the office. . .") (above), misrepresentations of things I've said in order to get me blocked, etc? Ocdgrammarian (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Opening an SPI isn't a personal attack, nor, incidentally, is calling for a topic ban on ANI, and I don't see anything improper about the way these things were done. However, LavaBaron certainly made some inappropriate remarks earlier, such as here and here. He should have let the remarks alone and opened the SPI and/or ANI sooner instead. But have you noticed that that was then, and since then he's been civil to you (as far as I've seen)? He even suggested here that you and he should both "try a slightly toned-down way of interacting with each other", an olive branch which you rejected, instead demanding an apology for opening the SPI. And you have continued with the implicit attacks — "stepping into a snake pit", "biased and nasty", "ideologues who pose as editors", "experienced editors can take advantage of procedural tricks to get away with introducing their own biases into articles" — it doesn't help that you don't name names in such remarks, since it's obvious what individual(s) you're referring to. It's downright character assassination and it has no place on Wikipedia. What more defense against the sock accusations than you've already made do you want? Please drop the stick. As for "misrepresentations of things I've said in order to get me blocked", I haven't seen any, I don't know what they are, and that's exactly the kind of accusation that's useless without diffs. I really don't think you'd regret it if you took a look at the Simple diff and link guide. I wrote it myself, if that's any enticement. Bishonen | talk 08:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen: Very clear and simple guide indeed. I'm referring to the misrepresentation you discuss here. You refer to it as him misunderstanding what I've written, but considering he hasn't withdrawn the accusation since you pointed this out, I don't think good faith can be assumed. I get what you're saying. I've not only dropped the stick since I very inartfully said my peace on ANI, I've stopped engaging entirely. Like I said, I'm done, and I mean it this time.

I'm not going to comment on the ANI thread anymore, but perhaps you can tell me how to proceed or pass on my thoughts to folks there: As for the TBAN, I only have two points of contention with him on the Gaffney article: 1) The part here, where he claims I did SYNTH, but where I only extended the quote from the pre-existing SPLC source to add more context and added another source that references Gaffney directly (ADL). The ADL source, like SPLC, is also negative toward Gaffney but also adds more context. 2) Where he added POV that doesn't exist in the source and removed a quote from the same source that didn't match his attempt to paint Gaffney's former editor at the Washington Times as hyper-critical of Gaffney. The editor called Gaffney's writing "well-reasearched," which puts a dent into the POV he was going with there - so, out the quote goes. I think these edits are fair and that's the extent of time and effort I care to spend on the page from now on. As for the IBAN, I am very concerned about this escalation by him - as far as I understand it, he can edit whatever he wants on Wikipedia without me being able to revert it. For example, he can vandalize the completely unrelated article I created on an MIT professor I know or vandalize my talk page - and there's nothing I can do about it. If there is to be an IBAN, it's better that it be two-way, since, as you agree, he hasn't been entirely innocent in this beef. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Surely you have passed on your thoughts? Amply. LavaBaron's request for an IBAN hasn't got any support at all on the ANI (which seems to be winding down altogether). IBANs are very problematic, both one- and two-way, and I wouldn't consider one in this case. I was talking about a Tban above, not IBAN. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like LB is trying to recruit friendly editors to win this dispute. See this under "SPI". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.20 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, please remember to sign-in to protect your privacy. Second, please review WP:CANVASSING and observe that one-off, neutrally worded notifications to editors who have a logical interest in a topic (e.g. someone who has ruled on a specific sock claim twice previously) are not covered by it. Third, note the datestamp was prior to Bishonen handling this. Fourth, JzG is an Admin and presumably does not have such an "awww schucks / gee-whiz!" mentality that he is susceptible to "recruiting." Fifth, as per WP:NOTIFY, there is an uncodified expectation you notify other editors if you discuss them or make allegations against them as you just did here; shortening someone's userid to initials to avoid them learning you're lobbying against them is really skirting an edge from which you're already in danger of falling off. It's annoying to me when I have to learn I'm being talked about second-hand from one of the editors who are monitoring your page. LavaBaron (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Was trying to figure out this mess. A couple of thots. 1st, the link that 172.56.34.20 referred to above was archived. After doing a bit of searching,I found it in JzG's archive. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_131. 2nd, LB, this really does look like canvassing. And 3rd, LB, so you have editors monitoring the talk pages of other users for you? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.199 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron: First and last: leave me alone. I don't know the IP person who left this comment on my page. Occam's razor: I sign out of Wikipedia and search up my own talk page, as opposed to signing in and clicking on my user name in the upper right like normal people do, and then comment on it pretending to be someone else. Or, is it more likely that somebody who's dealt with you before is letting me know that you're doing what you're accusing me of doing? Under your own standards, aren't you violating WP:NOTIFY by failing to "notify other editors if you discuss them or make allegations against them as you just did" against me on that admin's page without any notification? Can't I also complain that "it's annoying to me when I have to learn I'm being talked about second-hand?" These are your words, not mine. It's also your disruptive behavior, not mine. Just to drive the final nail in the coffin, I don't think calling me "a Zeke1999 reincarnation" counts as a "neutrally worded notification" under WP:CANVASSING. Again, please leave me alone. I am tired of dealing with threats, conspiracy theories and delusions of persecution, as I'm sure is everyone else. You can only cry wolf a couple of times before people stop paying attention to you. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Frank Gaffney: 1RR violation

You have violated the 1RR restriction which is in force at Frank Gaffney. Please self-revert before you're blocked. See the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

When can I reinstate the edit then? I think it's ridiculous to exclude a valid opinion from an expert and is a clear case of POV.

Please sign and date your posts. Is it "POV" now? I thought you said "vandalism", which was your excuse for reverting twice within 24 hours. But crying "vandalism" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for edit warring. On the contrary, it's closely defined, see WP:VAND. Anyway, you have now been topic banned from Frank Gaffney, see below, so restoring your edit won't be an issue. I suppose you noticed that you reverted two different editors, one of whom, Doug Weller, has attempted to explain the "POV" issue to you on Talk:Frank Gaffney. See also the warning about personal attacks below. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

November 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Frank Gaffney. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 21:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from Frank Gaffney and related pages, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to make sure you understand what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for persistent disruption of the Frank Gaffney page, especially in view of the previous warnings and explanations you have received, on this page and on ANI. I've asked you to self-revert your very recent 1RR violation ~~(which so far you haven't)~~ (striking out: the user did self-revert before I clicked "Save"), but on second thoughts, and reading back in the discussions above as well as here, I've decided that's not enough.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]